Getting closer, but we're not there yet

SO IT would seem that Britain has become a more socially liberal society. Of course we hope so.

It could well have started with Ben Bradshaw, who is still Member of Parliament, and who fought a very indicative and telling campaign during the 1997 General Election.

Against him, Adrian Rogers standing for the old Conservative right fought an election campaign emphasising what he saw as family values. A set of principles which I have no doubt that he believes in absolutely.

From this sense then we were looking at a candidate who believed in the monogamous marriage of one woman and one man, under the eyes of a very Church Of England God. The very definition of a traditional marriage. And Rodger's and his campaign team believed that the electorate would agree with him.

However, this would not be the case for Bradshaw won the marginal seat by a good 11,000 majority, which could only mean one thing. Rodgers had sorely misjudged the temperature and the values of the electorate.

And it was not difficult to locate the reasons why Rodgers had lost. For underneath the supposed claims of family values lurked an undertone of homophobia. Rodgers saw himself as not standing against a member of the opposing Labour party, but rather against a candidate who was openly gay.

Only the people of Exeter were more liberal and open minded than he thought and sent Bradshaw to the House of Commons based on the fact of his policies rather than that of his sexuality.

The proof of the pudding was in the ballot box. Devon and the rest of country had become more liberal and accepting.

Taking this and the intervening years in to consideration. It should have been easy to state that at this point the old Tory right wing had begun to whither and die. Their values being dated and outmoded to a early twenty first century society. This is after all the age of Civil Partnership.

Only it would seem that they have not wholly gone away in to the night. The xenophobic nature of the old right has raised its head in the euro-sceptic faction, especially in the form of UKIP, which tend to share a lot of values with the old Tory right.

Also these figures seem as well to be hiding around the backbenches of the more centrist front bench. This can be seen in the vote for the same sex marriage bill which was passed through it's first reading in the Commons last Tuesday.

The numbers were quite simple 400 to 175 against, which means the bill was carried by a majority of 225. Only out of the number which opposed the bill 136 were Conservative. Meaning that even in the Tory party there is still this homophobic element present which should have been snuffed out by now.

Change is always a hard notion to embrace and it is a fact of life that our society has changed through this vote for the better. Yet there are still those who are more than willing to fight a rear guard action. Resistant to any notion of change, presenting a steady challenge to any notion of a fair and equal society.

So what are we going to do with the hard core right of the Conservative party? What are we to do with these homophobes and xenophobes, these little Englanders who seem to hold to the narrow moral values of the mid-Victorian period?

Why are they now so intent on trying to create a new generation of Oscar Wildes?

It seems a shame that over the past century via Ben Bradshaw's election, though to Civil Partnership's, and this historical vote for Same Sex Marriage, that there are still a small, but dwindling cartel of naysayers who cannot accept the fact that sexuality is a morphic quality within humanity.

Not every one takes to a straight line when it comes to sexuality.

And it is the acceptance of this very idea which could easily be the first step of the old Tory right moving away from it's own sense of fear and prejudice of difference in our culture. Is it not better to have a society as a whole rather than one which is fragmented through outmoded ideas?

Therefore we can only hold our hands out and offer them the help they need. The majority who supported this bill can help them understand, and the more liberal society we live in can help them understand. In the end I think we can break though to them and offer them something which, maybe they have never felt before. A movement away from their own prejudices and their old forms of hate.

• by Foldart
David Cameron wants to lose the next election. What he makes as Prime Minister is peanuts to what he'll be paid when he leaves.
Last time I checked, about 2 years ago, Blair was up to £M24. Probably a lot higher than that now. Cameron's five year plan is to destroy the Conservative party as it once was. Political parties lose battles during elections but are completely destroyed from within. Clegg has destroyed himself simply by being in coalition and Miliband is next in line for his 5 year stint by which time there will only be one party controlled by Europe.
Look at the candidate the Tories have put up to contest Eastleigh, a woman who wants to leave Europe and is opposed to gay marriage. You'd think she was a member of UKIP. The voters of Eastleigh will probably vote Libdem because they are ingrained and it works for them. They will certainly see right through Cameron and Labour are not even on their radar. Like them or loathe them, the public nationwide are pleading with them to vote for UKIP which is Cameron's greatest fear. Balls today has announced that Labour wouldn't rule out a referendum on leaving the EU, an u turn after Miliband said they wouldn't. The three main parties are running around like headless chickens because more and more of the British public are seeing them for what they really are.
Sense of humour time again... the Pope has just resigned and in 2007, Anthony Charles Lynton Blair became a Catholic.

@cassiebiker - You have to have a sense of humour, the way things are going. I still wonder what made David Cameron get on his high horse about marriage. There's no going back, he can't back down or he will lose face.
As it is, he will probably only lose the next election.

Cassiebiker, the only people on these pages whom I believe to be members of the BNP are the two who include entire chunks of BNP policy. Ditto UKIP. Of course there are a lot of people who agree with them who aren't active supporters. To appropriate the language of the right, however, they do seem to be "fellow travellers".
I appreciate that many of these people are now baby-boomer pensioners whose parents fought in the war. My parents are that age, too, and they don't harbour the same racist views of the first postwar generation. It's not automatic. Perhaps they have a clearer idea of what they were fighting for - and against - than those who came after.
It is, of course, the privilege of the old to criticise the young. Bear in mind, however, that all sweeping generalisations are by definition inaccurate and not all "liberals" are fresh out of nappies.
Incidentally, I was under the impression that the whole point of "liberalism" was to allow people a fair degree of individuality, as long as it doesn't frighten the horses. (Neo-liberalism, though, now that's something to worry about.) Fascism was the one that sought to victimise anybody who didn't agree with them.
I do hope you're right about us all wondering what the fuss was about in a few years' time, though!

by soultoucher
It's all to do with evolution. In my lifetime, the gay fraternity have gone from being outlaws to public acceptance, provision for civil partnerships and the right to adopt children.
Just as well top it all off with same sex marriage, after all, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. In a few short years when the first divorces are announced, I doubt anybody will remember what all the fuss was about.
As Soultoucher says, liberalism is also designed to turn us all into zombies where all we'll be able to comment on will be the weather. Mass immigration issues, globalisation and the like seem to be running parallel to the conspiracy theory attached to "Agenda 21". (Google it). The younger generations have been largely brainwashed and it's only the golden oldies who can see what is happening around us. If we say anything against the EU or are concerned about mass immigration, the commenter's hit us with tags like "little Englanders" and worse. They somehow believe we are soccer hooligans and bother booted members of the EDL or the BNP whereas most of us are 65 and over.
We are the first generation following our parents who grew up among the rubble left from WW11. Worse still, they are aiming their insults at the very people who fought against Hitler when he attempted to unite Europe. They insult the millions who gave their lives for our sovereignty, democracy and freedom so they can exercise their freedom of speech in the first place. That freedom of speech is fast eroding as we become part of the new EUSSR run by corrupt individuals in Brussels aided by corrupt politicians in London.
Measures are already in place to gag those who speak out against the EUSSR and old timers like us are wedged between a rock and a hard place, those who want to destroy our democracy on one side and the younger element who try to reign us in because we are not liberal enough. By delaying the referendum by another 5 years or more...those who are 65 now will by then be in their 70's and hardly likely to stand much of a chance while protesting on the streets. I feel sorry for my grandchildren. The others who insult us, they will find out for themselves when it's far too late to do anything about it.
We still got a sense of humour though.
It's a pity that Chris Huhne wasn't a Plymouth based politician when he got caught speeding. Argyle could have taken the three points instead of his wife and they wouldn't have dropped him in it like she did!

I'm really peed off about this article, there's too much 'Big Brother' everywhere.
Listen to the rubbish in it, the insinuation that anyone with different views is 'holding society back', having 'narrow moral values', 'old forms of hate', and need the 'new thinkers' to hold their hands and explain the error of their thoughts. What a joke.
Our Government are corrupt, our police, bankers, media and business leaders. All corrupt.
Now the meat packaging business is corrupt and we don't know what we're eating.
The EU won't let us ban it, things feel out of control and to top off all the worrying about those things, now we have to worry about what we think, say and feel.
I don't want a society where everyone thinks the same, how boring would that be?
There's more important things to sort out than calling people who think differently homophobic, xenophobic and any other phobia that's lurking around this month.
Change is a big thing, especially to the British and can't be rushed, or forced down anyone's throats which is what's happening.
If you read the comments in other newspapers/online forums, the majority view doesn't appear to be as clear cut as the article states and a lot of people are unhappy about this and other changes seemingly happening at once.

Phrases like "true marriage" and "the pseudo-equality they know they can never have" are illuminating, but I won't go there. I know a few gay and bi men and women and they're all glad the bill passed its first reading (and none of them live in London) - while the feedback from other people I know, across several generations, has been entirely positive.
As we understand more of the natural world in which we live, surely it's only right that we should update these obsolete taboos which were, after all, only based on ignorance of the range of sexuality in animal behaviour?
I do agree with you about Cameron. though. He's been spectacularly inept, from a party political point of view, in his handling of this issue. I don't agree that he shouldn't have tackled it, but the way in which he's fumbled it has done him and his party no favours at all.
Not that I'm complaining about him weakening his chances of winning the next election, mind...!

Let's not get into history, gents. History for homosexuals is not a good one.
@Nevman - Although some MPs, of all persuasion, were against the Bill on religious grounds, others stated, categorically, that their views were secularist ones based on the reasons I have already given.
If this was such a clear case then we wouldn't be discussing it? In fact the current vote, on this website, on homosexual marriage has 54% against the idea at this moment in time. So, I wonder what the real views on the subject are nationally and not what David Cameron says it is. I dare say the percentage of homosexuals in London may be higher than other places in the UK and the power of their lobby that much greater.
DC has stirred up an unnecessary hornets nest with this Bill, probably pushed by this lobby group. Some homosexuals have publicly admitted that were quite happy with civil ceremonies and didn't want the sort of public limelight that they are getting. (see The Times, last week)
I suppose, in the end, this is a semantic argument. Marriage, for most people, is a union of a man and a woman, whether in a religious setting or a secular one. Given that homosexuals can have the same rights as a normal couple, why the push it? I think this more to do with the pseudo-equality they know they can never have.
I think, in the end, the Bill will go through but not without long reaching consequences for DC and the Tories and the meaning of true marriage.

@Foldart: I can't help smiling at your lecture about people's opinions which is based on what "it seems" people are saying rather than what they actually are saying. What you read into others' statements is entirely a matter of opinion rather than fact, and you are of course welcome to it.
I will say, however, that it's funny how so many Tory backbenchers have suddenly become lifelong fundamentalist Christians - even though their putative saviour is reported by the Bumper Book Of God Fibs to have expressed no opinions against homosexuality. Strangely, all of the positive things he allegedly said about the poor, money etc. don't seem to have bothered them at all.
In other words, they're using a religion they don't care two hoots about as a smokescreen.
You claim that changing the definition of marriage from a legally recognised partnership between two people with different genitals to a legally recognised partnership between two people regardless of their genitals is "radical". Again, that's your opinion. Public opinion, however, doesn't seem to regard it as quite the unmitigated disaster that you do.
@beanspiller: Again, the gospels in your myth factory say nothing about this Jesus character's views on homosexuality. I'd be quite interested to hear you prove that marriage was invented by the religious, too, as the concept certainly predates Christianity by a few thousand years. In fact, it seems to predate recorded history. Perhaps your forebears just stole it from pagans - you know, like they did with Easter and Christmas.

I would suggest that Ben Bradshaw got 'in' on the back of a Blair tidal wave. Nothing to do with liberal attitudes. I am no Christian but your piece is an affront to Christianity. You appear to be both patronising and bigoted. Marriage is/was a religious ceremony until hijacked by those that wish to destroy religion. What are you afraid of Nick?